Sunday, May 19, 2013

From Michele Bachmann...

Who ordered the political witch hunt by the IRS against Tea Party
groups, Pro-Israel, Conservative, and Christian organizations? Who
ordered no military response in Benghazi? Who ordered journalist phone
lines to be tapped? Who ordered the EPA to provide more waivers to
green-leaning groups over conservative ones?

The Bipartisan Folly of Our Islam Delusion

Politicians
accuse each other of failure, which is to be expected. Each side has
their “narrative,” and the truth often loses out (although I am thankful
for the honest and courageous ones who do speak the truth).

But since I’m not a politician, but instead have a prophetic
journalistic voice, I will speak the truth and let the chips fall where
they may.

There is one area in particular where it is hard to find the truth
spoken by either Republicans or Democrats: namely, this whole idea that
Muslim people yearn for democracy. It is a glaring short-sightedness
that both sides hold in common.

To be sure, many of my Muslim friends long for Western-style
democracy and freedom. But they are always thwarted (and always will be)
by the majority view. That is why even those friends of mine would
admit that democracy is incompatible with Islamic ideology.

Knowledgeable people will agree that democracy and freedom is a
delicate rose that was planted in the soil of the Protestant
Reformation. The Reformation turned the people of the dark ages back to
the Bible, with its deeply-rooted respect for the individual.

The Bible unequivocally declares that God values “the individual.”
God not only created a man and a woman to be compatible in every way,
but God gave man the management responsibility for His creation—thus God
placed “the individual” at the helm of importance.

The Christian faith testifies to the fact that although humans fell
in the Garden of Eden, God saw fit to redeem them at a colossal cost to
Himself—such is the value he places on us.

That is the soil that gave Western democracy its ideals.

Now enter some misguided Republicans and Democrats who think that the
ideology of Islam can be rehabilitated and made compatible with Western
Christian values.

Neither political side understands that, contrary to the biblical
view of man, the root of Islamic ideology declares that man is of no
consequence. Allah is. The human individual is of no value; he is only
to serve the whim of Allah, his prophet, and the successors (caliphates)
of the prophets of Islam. Democracy and freedom rise from the bottom
up, whereas Islam is a top-down ideology—Allah, whose words they claim
to have received, is all that matters.

So when George W. Bush often said that freedom is “God's gift to humanity,” thoughtful people needed to ask some important questions.

Such as, which God? Yahweh, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Or Allah of 7th century Arabia?
As well-intentioned as his administration was, a cursory look at our
effort to bring democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Egypt offer
proof of the apparent impossibility of the task.

And when President Obama speaks of Muslims yearning for freedom as we do, one must ask: whose definition of freedom is he talking about?

Well over 90 percent of the Islamic states that signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and
the right to freedom of religion contained within it—would immediately
qualify it by declaring that “freedom” means freedom to be a slave of
Allah and nothing more.

That is why the definition of freedom is so important. Using that
emotive word sounds good in the Western press, but it is meaningless in
Islamic culture. Just take a look at the president’s efforts in Libya,
Tunisia, and Egypt for confirmation.

To get a taste of the dominant view of Islamic ideology, one need
only watch the countless videos of Islamic religious leaders available
on the internet. Videos like the one of Egyptian Cleric Sheik Murgan
Salem after the Boston bombing will help skeptics understand why I hold
such contrarian opinions.

Those men do not speak only for a few; they speak for the vast
majority. Regardless of whether it’s the one who declares that U.S. aid
is a jeziah that infidels must pay to Muslims, or the one who says that
Islam will one day dominate the West, they all prove the folly of not
facing the facts.

As long as that folly is shared in a bipartisan fashion, the prospects for peace in the world will be very bleak.

It’s been a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week at the White
House—and it isn’t looking like next week will be any better. You
probably know about Obama’s trifecta of troubles: the Benghazi story
about the attack that killed four Americans and the aftermath that
falsely blamed a YouTube video that “continues to smolder on the
far-right side of the dial,” the IRS targeting conservative groups for
extra scrutiny while giving liberals a pass, and, the one that got the mainstream media engaged: the “broad and potentially chilling probe” conducted by the Justice Department on journalists’ phone calls at the Associated Press (AP).

The place in which the President finds himself has been compared to
that of Nixon on May 17, 1973, about which US News and World Report states:
“The scandal and cover-up came to define and destroy Richard Nixon's
presidency. It’s too early to tell if the scandals plaguing President
Barack Obama … rise to a similar level.”

It may be too early to tell whether the three scandals will “define and
destroy” Barack Obama’s presidency—but they do reveal a propensity to
massage the message and reward their friends while destroying their
enemies. And, there are more than the trifecta of troubles that make
this point, there’s a six-pack of scandals.

In addition to the three-widely covered stories, there are three more with the same characteristics.

EPA Favors Friendlies

We see favoritism in the EPAs treatment of friendly groups vs. a
“concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed
unfriendly.” A few days ago, the Washington Examiner reported
on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) review of Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests to see how equally the agency applies
its fee waiver policy. The results are shocking.

Chris Horner, Senior Fellow at CEI, told me: “The IRS and EPA
revelations are near-identical uses of the state to enable allies and
disadvantage opponents. Granting or denying tax-exempt status can make
or break a group. The same is true with FOIA fee waivers being tossed
like Mardi Gras beads at greens, and denied to opponents of a bigger
regulatory state. Fees for FOIA document productions can run into the
six-figures.”

We’ll be hearing more about the EPA friendlies scandal. On Friday, May 17, Senator Vitter’s office sent a letter
to EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe requesting “your prompt
attention to this matter as we investigate EPA’s process for granting
FOIA fee waivers.” The letter was signed by David Vitter, Ranking
Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; Darrel
Isa, Chairman, Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, U.S. House
of Representatives; James Inhofe, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Oversight Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; and
Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate.

The May 17 letter states: “According to documents obtained by the
Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for liberal
environmental groups–effectively subsidizing them–while denying fee
waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and
conservative groups. This disparate treatment is unacceptable,
especially in light of the recent controversy over abusive tactics at
the Internal Revenue Service, which singled out conservative groups for
special scrutiny.”

It reveals that the “EPA manipulated the FOIA fee waiver process.” Fee
waiver requests sent by environmental groups were granted for 92% of the
requests while EPA denied a fee waiver for 93% of requests from CEI and
overall only granted fee waivers for other think tanks 27% of the time.
“The startling disparity in treatment strongly suggests EPA’s actions
are possibly part of a broader effort to collude with groups that share
the agency’s political agenda and discriminate against states and
conservative organizations. This is a clear abuse of discretion.”

The Washington Examiner reports: “all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied.”

Wind farms get a pass

We see the same “startling disparity in treatment” in the way the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
is applied. Under both acts, the death of a single bird—without a
permit—is illegal. On May 14, the AP reported
on an investigation that showed that nearly 600,000 birds are killed
each year by wind farms, including an average of about one golden eagle a
month in Converse County, WY—which the AP calls: “one of the deadliest
places in the country of its kind.” California’s Altamont Pass wind
farms “kill more than 60 per year”—making it the “industry’s deadliest
location.”

Yet, “so far, the companies operating industrial-sized turbines here
and elsewhere that are killing eagles and other protected birds have yet
to be fined or prosecuted—even though every death is a criminal
violation. The Obama administration has charged oil companies for
drowning birds in their waste pits, and power companies for
electrocuting birds on power lines. But the administration has never
fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law
repeatedly.”

Back in August 2011, oil company executives were hauled into court, by
Timothy Purdon, the US Attorney for North Dakota, over the death of 28
migratory birds—including ducks. Businessweek reported:
“The maximum penalty for each charge under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act is six months in prison and a $15,000 fine.” The case was thrown out
of federal court in January of 2012 by district Judge Daniel Hovland,
who rejected US Attorney Purdon's “expansive interpretation of the law”
because it “would yield absurd results.” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) called
the ruling “withering” and said: the “selective prosecution was
probably an expression of its political hostility to oil and gas
companies.” The report concludes with: “Mr. Purdon takes the prize for
dodo prosecutor of the year.”

The WSJ didn’t point out Purdon’s resume. The LA Times reports:
“Purdon is a prominent Democratic donor and fundraiser,” who served on
the Democratic National Committee and who “has no experience as a
prosecutor.” Purdon was chosen over several, apparently, more qualified
candidates, who probably didn’t have Purdon’s pedigree. He was selected
because he’s a loyalist who’d do what the White House wanted—and that
included prosecuting oil companies for duck deaths.

Similarly, the AP reports that ExxonMobil paid $600,000 for killing 85
birds and BP was fined “$100 million for killing and harming migratory
birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill. And PacifiCorp, which operates
coal plants in Wyoming, paid more than $10.5 million in 2009 for
electrocuting 232 eagles along power lines and at its substations.”

“Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed a rule that would
give wind-energy companies potentially decades of shelter from
prosecution for killing eagles.” The wind-energy industry has been part
of the committee that drafted and edited the guidelines that the
Interior Department updated last year that “provided more cover for wind
companies that violate the law.” The AP states: “In the end, the
wind-energy industry … got almost everything it wanted.”

Former US Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent Tom Eicher aptly
sums up the scandal: “What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute
an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK.” Yet,
in an interview with the AP before his departure, former Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar “denied any preferential treatment for wind.”

Expect more coverage of the preferential application of regulatory
enforcement. Rep. Doc Hasting, Chairman of the House Natural Resources
committee, made the following statement through spokeswoman Jill Strait:
“There are serious concerns that the Obama administration is not
implementing this law fairly and equally.” The Committee is in “the
beginning stages of an investigation.”

Propping up green energy

We see similar favoritism across the bigger energy spectrum. Despite
President Obama’s frequent touting of increased domestic oil and gas
production, “federal government policies are suppressing development,” says
Kathleen Sgamma, Vice-President of Government and Public Affairs for
the Western Energy Alliance (WEA). “Unfortunately, the federal
government is standing in the way of increasing production of valuable
energy resources that could spur further job creation, economic growth,
and energy security.” To support her comments, the WEA press release
offers the following numbers: “From FY2008 to FY2011 the Bureau of Land
Management offered 81% less acreage, which has resulted in a 44% drop
in leasing revenue, down from $356 million to $201 million.

Nationwide,
royalty and leasing revenue have declined 12% from $4.2 billion to $3.7
billion.” Meanwhile production and revenue on private lands increased.

Additionally, despite numerous reports regarding the positive economic
impacts and environmental safety of the Keystone pipeline it has been
continuously delayed—now
for more than 1700 days. On Thursday, the House Transportation &
Infrastructure Committee passed a bill that, according to the WSJ,
“effectively pushes through approval of the 875-mile pipeline by
eliminating the need for Mr. Obama to issue a special permit for it.”
Transportation committee chair Rep. Bill Shuster said: “After more than
four years of bureaucratic delays, this bill will finally allow
construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. This project has been studied
more than any other project of its kind.”

While federal policies are suppressing traditional energy that is
effective, efficient and economical, they are propping up projects that
have been repeatedly found to be failures—but that benefit Democratic
donors.

Through Obama’s 2009 Stimulus Bill—which Democratic donors such as John Doerr, and George Soros (personally
and through the Soros-funded Apollo Alliance) helped craft—nearly $100
billion dollars have been made available for green energy projects. With
the help of researcher Christine Lakatos who’s been working on it since
2009, I’ve been extensively covering the green-energy crony-corruption scandal
for the past 12 months. We’ve found that nearly all of the Department
of Energy-funded projects had meaningful political connections and many
got special treatment—such as fast-tracked approvals
with little scrutiny over environmental damages that would have taken
any other energy company months, if not years, to get—from the
Department of Interior. The policies benefitted insiders such as
Treasury Secretary Jack Lewand Secretary of State John Kerry—just to name a few. To date, 25 have gone bankrupt
and four are about to go under—though 29 others have various issues.
Denying the dismal record, Obama’s 2014 budget calls for more taxpayer
dollars for green energy projects. It’s scandalous.

Now that The Hill is holding hearings and investigations on Benghazi,
the IRS, the AP, the EPA, and the green energy industry’s not-so-green
slaughter of protected species, it is time to look at the financial and
regulatory favors extended to friendlies while erecting obstacles to
anything or anyone they oppose—and that includes the green-energy
crony-corruption scandal that could be the biggest of them all.

These six scandalous stories illustrate the standard operating
procedure of the Obama White House—and, as such, there’s likely to be
even more. It may be too early to tell whether these scandals will
“define and destroy” Barack Obama’s presidency, but they are certainly a
distraction to his second-term agenda and display a side the
administration didn’t want made public.

Tax Revenue Hit All-Time High in AprilNewsmax
Amid calls from some for tax increases to deal
with the deficit, the federal government collected $406.72 billion in
April — the all-time noninflation-adjusted high for a single month.

Overall federal tax receipts in April were up 28
percent from April of last year, according to the Monthly Treasury
Statement from the U.S. Treasury.

April is almost always the peak month for tax revenue, since tax returns — and payments of taxes owed — are due on April 15.

The previous monthly high was $403.8 billion in April 2008.

The Treasury collected $240.2 billion in
individual income taxes in April, about 36 percent more than the $178.5
billion collected in April 2012.

Other revenue included about $96 billion in
employment and general retirement taxes, $36 billion in corporate taxes,
$9.8 billion in unemployment insurance taxes, $6.9 billion in excise
taxes, $5.8 billion in estate and gift taxes, and $2.5 billion in
customs duties.

Due to the record tax revenue, the federal
government ran a surplus of $112.9 billion in April. But in the first
seven months of fiscal 2013, October through April, the government has
run a deficit of $487.6 billion.

Outlays totaled $293.8 billion in April. The
largest amount went to the Department of Health and Human Services,
which administers Medicare — $75.3 billion.

Next were the Social Security Administration
($71.7 billion), Department of Defense-Military Programs ($46.5
billion), and Interest on Treasury Debt Securities ($35.9 billion).

Interest on the debt is expected to cost taxpayers more than $420 billion this fiscal year.

What Triggered the IRS Targeting 'Admission'Newsmax
The surprising admission by a high-ranking
Internal Revenue Service official that the agency targeted tea party and
other conservative groups could be seen as a tactical move designed to
stave off a deeper investigation of the scandal.

Washington insiders said the Obama administration
was engaged in a classic tactic called a “modified limited hangout” or
MLH — a term that dates back to the Nixon presidency.

An MLH is a public relations or propaganda
technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in
hopes of ending a probe and preventing exposure of more important or
damaging information.

The idea is to admit to some wrongdoing, but not all, in hopes of deflating press and public demands for more investigations.

During a March 1973 discussion between President
Nixon and his top advisers, Nixon outlined to John Dean a report that
Dean would create, offering a misleading view of the White House staff's
role in events surrounding the Watergate burglary.

In March 2010, the IRS began targeting tea party
and other conservative groups for closer scrutiny, demanding paperwork
and other materials from the groups that delayed their application for
tax-exempt status.

A congressional committee last year asked
then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman about targeting allegations, but
he told the committee the agency wasn't targeting conservative groups.
He resigned in late 2012, and Steven Miller became acting IRS
commissioner.

Then in early May of this year, the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration released a report confirming
the targeting to congressional investigators, but not to the public.

Apparently fearing the release of the upcoming Inspector General’s report, IRS officials decided to engage in an MLH.

On May 10, Lois Lerner, head of the IRS
tax-exempt-status division, admitted that the targeting had been taking
place, but asserted that it had not been centrally planned and was
carried out by lower-level "front-line people" in the Cincinnati office.

But the move backfired — the admission by Lerner only served to spark public outrage and encourage investigators to dig deeper.

On Tuesday, four days after Lerner's admission,
respected elections attorney Cleta Mitchell came forward and claimed
that the IRS scandal reaches to the White House.

She said she also is aware of nearly 100 other conservative groups that were being targeted by Washington.

"There were nearly 100 groups across the country
that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost
identical and they came from offices all over the country, so I know of
at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations," said Mitchell, who
represents six groups that say they have been targeted.

She added that she had two clients whose groups’ purpose was to lobby against Obamacare, and both received extra IRS scrutiny.

Mitchell told Newsmax she doesn't believe the
president or the White House was uninvolved in the IRS activities, as
the administration has claimed.

"They may try to say it was low-level people,"
she said. "It was not low-level people. They weren't in Cincinnati. It
was being directed out of Washington, and I have them on record saying
that.

"We know the White House used the Department of
Health and Human Services to try to silence critics about Obamacare. So
if we know they used HHS, why wouldn't they also use the IRS or other
federal agencies to try to silence political critics?"

The next day, Wednesday, May 15 — the day
Commissioner Miller was forced to resign — the IRS reported that the
Inspector General's office is launching a new investigation.

EMAIL FOLLOWERS

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on RSP Radio at: https://streamingv2.shoutcast.com/right-side-patriots